Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:30:25.282Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

RETRACTED – Determination of geometrical margins in external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 December 2018

Mohamed Bencheikh Open the ORCID record for Mohamed Bencheikh [Opens in a new window] ,
Abdelmajid Maghnouj ,
Jaouad Tajmouati ,
Ahmed Dadouch  and
Zakariae Benjelloun
Mohamed Bencheikh*
Affiliation:
LISTA Laboratory, Physics Department, Faculty of Sciences Dhar El-Mahraz, University of Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah, Fez, Morocco
Abdelmajid Maghnouj
Affiliation:
LISTA Laboratory, Physics Department, Faculty of Sciences Dhar El-Mahraz, University of Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah, Fez, Morocco
Jaouad Tajmouati
Affiliation:
LISTA Laboratory, Physics Department, Faculty of Sciences Dhar El-Mahraz, University of Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah, Fez, Morocco
Ahmed Dadouch
Affiliation:
LISTA Laboratory, Physics Department, Faculty of Sciences Dhar El-Mahraz, University of Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah, Fez, Morocco
Zakariae Benjelloun
Affiliation:
LISTA Laboratory, Physics Department, Faculty of Sciences Dhar El-Mahraz, University of Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah, Fez, Morocco
*
Author for correspondence: Mohamed Bencheikh, Physics Department, Faculty of Sciences Dhar El-Mahraz, University of Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah, Fez, 30000, Morocco. E-mail: bc.mohamed@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction

The focus of this study is to find the optimal clinical tumour volume (CTV) to planning tumour volume (PTV) margins for precise radiotherapy treatment of prostate cancer. The geometrical shape of the target volume posses challenges in accurately identifying the CTV to PTV margins, especially when the organ affected by cancer demonstrates anatomical variations and the surrounding organs have high radio-sensitivity, in comparison to the organ of origin of the cancer.

Materials and methods

The geometrical margins of CTV to PTV are investigated using portal imaging, in three directions. This study is carried out on 20 patients treated by the external photon beam radiotherapy of prostate cancer using standard accelerator without stereotaxic and without prostate markers.

Results and discussion

Based on previous studies and the findings of our work, we propose CTV to PTV margin of 5·84 mm in the lateral direction, of 5·1 mm in the cranio-spinal direction and of 7·3 mm in the antero-posterior direction for external photon beam radiotherapy of prostate cancer.

Conclusion

The proposed CTV to PTV margins ensure high radiotherapy treatment precision of prostate cancer.

Keywords

CTV to PTV margindosimetry planninggeometrical marginsorgan at riskprostate cancer
Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , June 2019 , pp. 186 - 189
Check for updates
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Cite this article: Bencheikh M, Maghnouj A, Tajmouati J, Dadouch A, Benjelloun Z. (2019) DETRACTED – Determination of geometrical margins in external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice18: 186–189. doi: 10.1017/S1460396918000699

References

1. Report 50, Prescribing, recording and reporting photon beam therapy. Bethesda, MD: ICRU, 1993.Google Scholar
2. Report 62: Supplement to ICRU report 50 prescribing, recording and reporting photon beam therapy. Bethesda, MD: ICRU, 1999.Google Scholar
3. Report No 58: Dose and volume specification for reporting interstitial therapy. Bethesda, MD: ICRU, 1998.Google Scholar
4. Gokhan, K, Rao, G, Warren, D et al. A Supervised Learning Tool for Prostate Cancer Foci Detection and Aggressiveness Identification using Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging/magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging. Concer Inform 2018; 17: 1–8.Google Scholar
5. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society, 2017.Google Scholar
6. Kihlén, B, Ruden, B L. Reproducibility of field alignment in radiation therapy. A large scale clinical experience. Acta Oncol 1989; 28: 689–692.Google Scholar
7. Ramiandrisoa, F, Duvergé, L, Castellib, J, Nguyena, T D, Servagi-Vernat, S, De Crevoisier, R. Clinical to planning target volume margins in prostate cancer radiotherapy. Cancer Radiother 2016; 20 (6–7): 629–639.Google Scholar
8. Richards, M J S, Buchler, D A. Errors in reproducing pelvic radiation portals. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1977; 2: 1017–1019.Google Scholar
9. IAEA-TECDOC-1540. Specification and Acceptance Testing of Radiotherapy Treatment Planning Systems. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency, 2007.Google Scholar
10. Technical Reports Series No. 430. Commissioning and Quality Assurance of Computerized Planning Systems for Radiation Treatment of Cancer. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency, 2004.Google Scholar
11. IAEA TRS-398. Absorbed Dose Determination in External Beam Radiotherapy: An International Code of Practice for Dosimetry based on Standards of Absorbed Dose to Water. Vienna, Austria: International Atomic Energy Agency, 2004.Google Scholar
12. Klein, E E, Hanley, J, Bayouth, J et al. AAPM Task Group 142 Report: quality assurance of medical accelerators. Med Phys 2009; 36: 4197–4212.Google Scholar
13. Aubry, J F, Beaulieu, L, Girouard, L M et al. Measurements of intrafraction motion and interfraction and intrafraction rotation of prostate by three-dimensional analysis of daily portal imaging with radiopaque markers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004; 60: 30–39.Google Scholar
14. De Boer, H C J, Van Os, M J H, Jansen, P P, Heijmen, B J M. Application of the NoAction Level (NAL) protocol to correct for prostate motion based on electronicportal imaging of implanted markers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005; 61: 969–983.Google Scholar
15. Gordon, J J, Siebers, J V. Evaluation of dosimetric margins in prostate IMRT treatment plans. Med Phys 2008; 35 (2): 569–575.Google Scholar
16. Bel, A, Van Herk, M, Bartelink, H, Lebesque, J V. A verification procedure to improve patient set-up accuracy using portal images. Radiother Oncol 1993; 29: 253–260.Google Scholar
17. Wang, K K-H, Vapiwala, N, Bui, V et al. The impact of stool and gas volume on intrafraction prostate motion in patients undergoing radiotherapy with daily endorectal balloon. Radiother Oncol 2014; 112: 89–94.Google Scholar
18. Huijun, Xu, Gordon, J J, Siebers, J V. Coverage-based treatment planning to accommodate delineation uncertainties in prostate cancer treatment. Med Phys. 2015; 42 (9): 5435–5443.Google Scholar
19. Jin, S L, Mu-Han, L, Mark, K B, Eric, M H, Chang-Ming, M. Reduction of prostate intrafractional motion from shortening the treatment time. Phys Med Biol 2013; 58 (14): 4921–4932.Google Scholar
20. Buettner, F, Gulliford, S L, Webb, S, Partridge, M. Using Bayesian logistic regression to evaluate a new type of dosimetric constraint for prostate radiotherapy treatment planning. Med Phys 2010; 37 (4): 1768–1777.Google Scholar
21. Rudat, V, Nour, A, Hammoud, M, Alaradi, A, Mohammed, A. Image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy of prostate cancer: analysis of interfrac-tional errors and acute toxicity. Strahlenther Onkol 2016; 192: 109–117.Google Scholar
22. Schallenkamp, J M, Herman, M G, Kruse, J J, Pisansky, T M. Prostate position relative to pelvic bony anatomy based on intraprostatic gold markers and electronic portal imaging. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005; 63: 800–811.Google Scholar